Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
So rendering out isn’t an option? Or simply using FCP X? If so, why not? Sounds to me like that would be your best option yet.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
So why can’t you simply render the project out and use the subsequent clip in PPro? Because even with Motion 4 there is no way to simply export a project as an editable file elsewhere. Not even in FCP 7 let alone PPro. The old XMEML doesn’t even have 10% (and that’s being generous) the syntax it would need to cover every relevant option, parameter etc. etc. contained in the file and have it anywhere near the original in the end. Unless maybe it’s just a bunch of floating boxes with a few keyframes, no behaviors, no filters, no anything.
I would save yourself the time and not even try. Ain’t gonna work, period. Or simply use FCP X and not worry about either XML nor rendering out and have full access to any and everything within the file at all times.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
I haven’t actually checked, but I’d imagine you can’t mix rigs AND links in that way, no. But then… really? It’s a tad tedious, sure, but it does work as you describe. ????
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Sure. That’s the most classic use for rigs. Simply add all and any opacity parameter from any given layer to the same rig and set the state of each for every state of the pop-up.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Brian Seegmiller] “I don’t know if you were referring to me as not using FCP X…”
If you are, then clearly not, no. ????
(nor was I otherwise ????)
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Brian Seegmiller] “How do you implement those smart collections into Premiere Pro CC?”
Never mind keyword ranges (multiple, overlapping etc.) or anything along the lines of favorites or rejects etc. etc. etc.
Droll how some actually think metadata is only relevant and usable when machine generated. Low horizons.
It’s always so painfully easy to see who here has actually used FCP X and not just seen screenshots and read feature lists online that they felt threatened by — therefore in fact know what they’re talking about — and who is just pulling random brain-farts out of nether regions, trolling forums that are of no relevance to them otherwise. Just to justify some contrary personal choice. As if anyone cared. Amusing, too, how that threat can come from just mere software. ???????? Oh well. comes with the territory I spose! Dats da internetz fo’ yaz.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Herb Sevush] “I take it the Premiere implementation didn’t work out?”
No, there simply is little to no point. Or how do you see that working out? PPro doesn’t even do half the metadata that Final Cut Pro X does (in the sense of actually putting it to any helpful use) and uses it in completely different ways. Lumberjack caters specifically to FCP’s metadata capabilities. The mere fact that PPro is stuck in a near 20 year old time-loop with its use of an age old version of XML excludes it from even being able to access everything of functional use and value that LJ spits out. I suppose I could see e.g. the automatic keyword-based string outs working, but I’m guessing it pretty much ends there. Since how are you going to get that information into PPro?? XMEML is far too limited (little more than an EDL on steroids by today’s standards) and Adobe is clearly more interested in keeping you isolated in their own little ecosystem (and Avid even more so for that matter) to ever consider supporting something like FCPXML.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Steve Connor] “I like the way FCPX handles AAF files with X2Pro, I’d rather Apple used their resources on other stuff”
Exactly.
I in fact find the entire approach of leaving specialty functions to 3rd parties to cover and (most of all) maintain a pretty brilliant one. I think anyone that maintains it would somehow be a better solution to have it all tacked onto FCP by default, clearly hasn’t seen what e.g. Intelligent Assistance has been able to do over the years.
My hope is actually that Wes is there to implement an even tighter and smoother integration of Motion files and projects into FCP, for starters. He clearly has shown he knows how to approach it. Maybe even an overall improvement of 3rd party access for XML exchange, so there is no more going through the Finder for exchanges as it is with some apps. Something along those lines. Actually strikes me as the most logical plan. We’ll see. Soon I hope. ????
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
That would be even sadder.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Michael Gissing] “Hopefully that means X will handle file interchange like AAF internally”
I think it’s pretty safe to say that Apple’s exchange format is XML (you know, that thing that Wes is one of the very best at?)… period.
If it hasn’t changed in five years, why exactly would it change now? Because Wes knows something Apple doesn’t? Never mind that those formats are even older and still as horribly limited as they always were. Unlike XML.
Still wanna hope? ????
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!